https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175890 Rectification of a written contract was unavailable because Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act applies only where the instrument fails to reflect the parties' real intention due to fraud or mutual mistake, and no such pleadings or proof were laid. The auction contracts contained no term linking kist liability to enforcement of the toddy ban, so the claim to substitute the payable rate on that basis failed. Promissory estoppel also could not be based merely on a budget speech or an unfulfilled policy objective, as no clear enforceable promise was shown and the contractual risks had been knowingly assumed. The decrees for rectification and injunctive relief were set aside. en-us Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Dec 2021 14:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175890 Rectification of a written contract was unavailable because Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act applies only where the instrument fails to reflect the parties' real intention due to fraud or mutual mistake, and no such pleadings or proof were laid. The auction contracts contained no term linking kist liability to enforcement of the toddy ban, so the claim to substitute the payable rate on that basis failed. Promissory estoppel also could not be based merely on a budget speech or an unfulfilled policy objective, as no clear enforceable promise was shown and the contractual risks had been knowingly assumed. The decrees for rectification and injunctive relief were set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175890